John K. Sakaluk and Monica Biernat: University of Kansas, Department of Psychology Background: Tightness-Looseness Pelto (1968); Triandis (1989) The strength of norms in cultures (e.g., Japan v. Canada) Gelfand et al. (2011); Harrington & Gelfand (2014) Shown to differ by country/state Exploratory Factor Analysis References Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, Gelfand, M. J., et al. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, Harrington, J. R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2014). Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, Pelto, P. J. (1968). The difference between “tight” and “loose” societies. Transaction, Sakaluk, J. K., Todd, L. M., Milhausen, R. R., Lachowsky, N. J., & URGiS. (2014). Dominant heterosexual sexual scripts in emerging adulthood: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Sex Research, 51, Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, Wentland, J. C., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sex relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, Exploratory Structural Equation Model Discussion/Future Research Preliminary support for hypothesized associations of RNS RNS explains a large amount of variability in relationship quality (R 2 =.38) Recent experiment supports RNS  RQ causal association Dyadic studies needed to assess partner effects/intra-couple agreement Longitudinal research should assess RNS variation in response to important shifts in relationship context (e.g., childbirth, marriage, etc.) Objectives/Hypotheses 1.To develop multidimensional measure of RNS 2.To test two hypotheses about RNS: RNS should vary across different relationship types (e.g., one-night stand v. long-term) RNS should be positively associated with relationship quality Rationale: We are more influenced by people with whom we want to affiliate (Hardin & Conley, 2001)/to whom we are more attracted (Festinger, 1950) Relationship types vary in mutual affiliation motivation (Wentland & Reissing, 2011) Individuals desire high-relationships relationships (Fletcher et al., 2000) Participants/Procedure 309 participants (140 female, M age = 25.92) recruited from MTurk, from one of four relationship types (n ~ 75 each): 1.One-night stand (ONS) 2.Ongoing casual sex relationship (Casual) 3.New romantic/exclusive relationship (New) 4.Established romantic/exclusive relationship (Old) Completed pilot measure of RNS (24 items) and the Perceived Relationship Quality Components (PRQC) Inventory (Fletcher et al., 2000) Relationship Norm Strength (RNS) Much theory and research on relationship norm content (e.g., Clark & Mills, 1979; Sakaluk et al., 2014) Little theory or research on relationship norm strength Factor NameExample Item 1. Norm Coherence (14 sig. loading items) “I am confused by many of the ‘rules’ of our casual sex relationship” (R) 2. Norm Agreement (14 sig. loading items) “My partner and I agreed on the ‘rules’ of our one night stand” 3. Norm Explictness (10 sig. loading items) “My partner and I don’t discuss the ‘rules’ of our relationship; they are just understood” (R) 4. Anticipated Punishment for Deviance (5 sig. loading items) “The consequences for breaking one of the ‘rules’ of our relationship would be severe” Correlation Range: χ 2 (854) = ***, RMSEA 95% CI (.07,.08), CFI =.88, SRMR =.08 PredictorMediatorMC 95% CI ONSAgreed-.40, -.14 ONSExplicit-.28, -.03 ONSPunished-.20, -.01 CasualPunished-.19, -.02